W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: Custom element design with ES6 classes and Element constructors

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:37:34 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnb78gn=LSXNJqVnfJ-AyFi-Jg5LwELMc_YAxSS4hYbtjYE7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>
Cc: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Dmitry Lomov <dslomov@chromium.org>
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 5:11 AM, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can you say more about why same-identity upgrading is critical to the design
> (as opposed to dom-mutation upgrading)? I asked up-thread but didn't get any
> takers.

I tried to summarize the various upgrade scenarios here (as well as
the other issues):


None of them seem particularly attractive :-(

> More generally, once people start writing libraries of HTMLElement
> subclasses, our ability to add new callback names for all elements is going
> to become pretty dicey, and we'll probably be forced into symbols anyway. We
> may as well avoid a future inconsistency and just namespace DOM-supplied
> callbacks separately from user-supplied properties and methods.

Agreed that now that we have symbols we should start using them to
avoid collisions.

Received on Thursday, 15 January 2015 10:37:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:43 UTC